FOW would ruin the EIA game in my opinion. The hidden factors within the corp is good enough. Also a person can try and keep track of what they learned after a combat since you learn what corp are there and their strengths. After a few turns though those figures can change as replacements come in.

With FOW France would get creamed because it doesn't have enough corp to just patrol all of its area. If it spread out to patrol, its enemies would smash those 1 & 2 corp stacks.

France could combine and smash the enemy, but the enemy could then sneak a few corp past their borders into the heart of France. France is powerful, but even without FOW (other then not knowing the actual corp strengths), France gets challenged when ganged up on by 2 or 3 other countries as is common.

FOW would change the playability of EiA completely, and not for the better. By the time it is tweaked to make it "fair" it probably wouldn't be the same game. I'm not even thrilled about the EiH rules being incorporated though. I like EiA as it was written, along with the various erratas to clarify the rules, so changing beyond that as EiH does, changes the play of the game. I shall see if that change was for the better.

FOW would ruin the EIA game in my opinion. The hidden factors within the corp is good enough. Also a person can try and keep track of what they learned after a combat since you learn what corp are there and their strengths. After a few turns though those figures can change as replacements come in.

With FOW France would get creamed because it doesn't have enough corp to just patrol all of its area. If it spread out to patrol, its enemies would smash those 1 & 2 corp stacks.

France could combine and smash the enemy, but the enemy could then sneak a few corp past their borders into the heart of France. France is powerful, but even without FOW (other then not knowing the actual corp strengths), France gets challenged when ganged up on by 2 or 3 other countries as is common.

FOW would change the playability of EiA completely, and not for the better. By the time it is tweaked to make it "fair" it probably wouldn't be the same game. I'm not even thrilled about the EiH rules being incorporated though. I like EiA as it was written, along with the various erratas to clarify the rules, so changing beyond that as EiH does, changes the play of the game. I shall see if that change was for the better.

oldtimer, You told what I had in my mind. Thank You! FoW is a good thing in many games, but EiA with FoW wouldn't be EiA anymore.

... The strategic intelligence was very good. The operational intelligence was horrendous. Which is why FOW is clearly needed in an operational game - it would be crazy without it. But FOW is equally clearly ridiculous for a strategic game.

Does that corp counter you see have one militia SP or is it a real army?

Ah, but that is the crux of the matter. How is Spain supposed to even see that Russian Corps near St. Petersburg or Moscow? The point is that they're not. Oh sure, someplace closer is a whole lot easier, but to have exact and detailed information for at such distances is plain crazy.

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu Ah, but that is the crux of the matter. How is Spain supposed to even see that Russian Corps near St. Petersburg or Moscow? The point is that they're not. Oh sure, someplace closer is a whole lot easier, but to have exact and detailed information for at such distances is plain crazy.

Why would Spain care that there is a corps in St Petersburg? It's irrelevent and does not detract from the game.

If you need to find a rational explanation, then you could look at some of the intelligence which was available during the period: There was a Spanish agent working with the British who was described as knowing the position of every French army from the Nieman to the Douro through a network of agents and couriers, so yes, had Spain needed to know the position of Russian corps, then no doubt this would have been possible.

I'm a huge proponent of FOW in games. The biggest, and I mean biggest, issue with board games is the lack of fog of war. That said, FOW must be appropriate to scale. So is it possible that spain in a 3 month period would get some word of russian forces in the neighborhood of St. Pete? Sure. Is it realistic that they wouldn't know about a few corp crossing the Fr/Sp border in the same timeframe? Not at all.

Granted, it would be a more realistic if we were given smaller scale scout units and used them to track enemy armies. That way Russia could keep a major army hidden somewhere in the bowels of their country and nobody would know where it was. But is that gain in realism worth the labor? I don't think so.

All that said, one failing of the boardgame (AH edition, if that matters) is the lack of fog of war in regards to vps/economic choices. It's been ages since I played, but there was a trade-off a player could make between the VP marker (don't remember the real name) and economy. So spend less, get more VPs, or spend more and hope to earn your VPs on the battlefield.

This is the stuff I'd like to see hidden at the scale we're talking about. Sure, you know I have 7 corps spread out across prussia, but you don't know if I've been taxing the heck out of the peasants and filling those corps, or if it's all just a paper army.

I can't believe that so many otherwise rational people have so completely missed the point here.

EiA was (and is) a cardboard-and-paper wargame. It was designed with those constraints in mind. One of them is that the players are standing there looking down at a map with counters on it. They have a degree of knowledge of enemy dispositions that could never be historical. So, the game was designed with its own "fog of war" built into it, to the degree possible. One of the elements was uncertainty over the exact strength and composition of "corps."

This is the heart and soul of the game. Reproduction of this is what Matrix undertook when it contracted to "port" this game to a computer version.

I was excited when Matrix announced that they were going to do a Napoleonic Wars strategic-level game. I thought that it would be an opportunity for them to bring a fresh, computer-age approach to simulation of what has always been one of my favorite wargaming subjects.

But no. Next thing I knew, the game turned into a computer remake of EiA. Okay, I'm disappointed, but that's life. I hope I like computer EiA.

Gentlemen, it is now far too late to go back to Plan A. We are going to have to live with Plan B

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people And the people let me down. So, I turned the other way, And I carry on anyhow.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski EiA was (and is) a cardboard-and-paper wargame. It was designed with those constraints in mind. One of them is that the players are standing there looking down at a map with counters on it. They have a degree of knowledge of enemy dispositions that could never be historical. So, the game was designed with its own "fog of war" built into it, to the degree possible. One of the elements was uncertainty over the exact strength and composition of "corps."

Well perhaps some evidence of how this is "unhistorical" rather than assuming it. Of course it's more precise than historic, but don't make the mistake of thinking that these armies were fighting blind and did not know where corps were positioned. It's a mistake to assume operational and tactical FOW applied strategicaly.

This isn't ancient Gaul, nor is it the Pacific ocean, nor are we talking about a few days. How do you mask a concentration of tens of thousands of men from the enemy for months? Again, if you want to say "the middle of Russia", I hear you, but if we're talking about Bavaria, Bohemia, and so on you just can't hide an army for that long.

So, FOW in a matter of days? Sure. Over the months that each turn represents? No way. Granted, some ability exists on the periphery (Russia again, probably Turkey), but is it worth the added complexity to simulate this?

Complete FoW applied in this game, being such a strategic game, is simply silly, unrealistic, and entirely unhistorical. Complete FoW is meant for more tactical games played in a shorter, game time period, not over 16 years and not in Corp strength. I can't see how anyone could argue for FoW in this type of game and try to make it make sense. It's absurd.

I sincerely hope that you are joking about the Dyle plan being a new Napoleonic strategic war game. Anyone with a waving French flag in their info part of the screen should know about the Dyle plan in WWII.

The way the Corps are set up now, the FOW is fine. I don't feel the need for any other type of gimmick to change that.

Tondu - I am glad you know what the Dyle Plan was. As I said, I hoped you were joking. Not knowing you, I just wanted to be sure. I usually get humor better than that but working with people that don't know history very well can get you a little apprehensive at times.

Jomini speaks for himself and that is why I quoted his article in its entirety without inserting any comment from myself. He was there at the highest of levels on both sides. He is the authority and I find it extremely laughable that you are disputing him.

I will say that you blurr things terribly by presenting Jomini's quote as my own. Your lack of attention to detail is amazing.

In regards to Lloyd, he clearly was deluded about his nation's geographical impact upon military operations and Jomini gave three examples to prove it. There is nothing odd there.

Jomini speaks for himself.

Regarding the FOW issue for EiA, Matrix has finally spoken and all I ever will have to say is something like this:

To all,

It is with all of my heart that I wish for you to have many great experiences with this game. May it bring you years and years of joy. It is also my wish that Matrix sells many, MANY copies of it and that a great number of new Napoleonic games finds their way to your computer. Now that would be nice, wouldn't it?

Take care.

I'm sorry about the quote. I suppose I could have added Jomini's name in there, but I sort of assumed people would have already read your original post.

Anyway I wasn't trying to challenge Jomini. All I meant was that the quote suggests that ALL terrain on the map should be unknown until an army enters it, as the generals of the time were basically clueless about the geography of their own countries! I don't see how this would improve the game at all.

And I'm not sure how the fact that leaders were generally ignorant of the geography of the theatre has to do with their knowledge or lack of knowlege of how many corps were in a particualar (game) province over the course of a month. That is the scale that is important here. The fact that they didn't know the geography certainly shows that they were generally in the dark, but I've yet to hear a concrete example of ignorance on the scale of the game.

Another example. In 1801 the allies knew full well that the army of the reserve was being formed in Burgundy. They disocunted it militarily (didn't know the mix of militia to regulars?:)) but they knew it was there. In game terms the army then disappeared for a week or so, and then reappeared in the Val d'Aosta. Did Melas know that Fort Bard was being attacked? Not the saem day obviously, but quickly enough. Did he know how many troops Bonaparte had? Not by a long shot, but he knew that it was army sized. He lost the French again when they headed for Milan rather than Genoa. But again, this was not for a month or more.

The game allows you to know how many corps markers are in a province, and no more. I maintain that it's an adequate representation of how things worked in real life.

No real additions. Oldtimer is absolutely right in what he says. And if you've played EiA a lot you know he's right. As was stated before, we EiA gamers seem to agree that people wanting Fog of War haven't played the game before. FoW is in no way needed and will only be detrimental to the whole game experience. Forget FoW and complete the game instead ;)

And forget EiH rules untill the first basic game is complete. EiH can be added later if needed. All we want is EiA, and now ;)

The semi fog of war already in EIA makes for an exciting game, let me tell you

I have to agree that total FOW like in Europa UNiversialis would not work, but it would have some hilarious results.

I can see the opening statements for april...spring campaigns result in the spanish caturing london, england capturing paris, russia capturing Berlin, France capturing Vienna, Austria sacking Constaninople while the Turkish army was held up by Austrian insurrection corps and captured Transivania...

ORIGINAL: dinsdale 3) Take 3 examples where the failure to locate a corps or ability to maneuver without the enemy being aware of strength or placement; after Rivioli, Jena/Auerstadt and Waterloo. Neither the disengagement of the Prussians after Ligny, the confusion both Napoleon and Hoenloe suffered in regard to which enemy lay at each town at the onset of Jena/Auerstadt, and the rapid march of Napoleon after Rivoli to stun Wurmser are all extreme examples of fog of war deceisively affecting the outcome of an operation. Each of those took place in an area contained within 1 EIA province, it simply isn't necessary to drill down to the operational and tactical level within provinces, as each commander could place his enemy with certainty in an area that size.

No FOW is quite acceptable for the game, we have to assume that all the dazzling affects such maneuvers could create are contained in an abstracted manner within the combat system.

True, but I think you are looking for a justification of your own arguement rather than historical fact.

If we take the 1815 campaign for example the FOW aspect of that campaign which is relevent to a game of this scale is not the confusion over the location of the Prussian Army after Ligny but the mutual confusion over the location of the armies prior to the start of the campaign.

We know for instance that Wellington beleived that the French Army was centred much further to the North than it actually was and that it was far more dispersed than it actually was. Mainly becuase he was relying upon inside information warning him of any last minute movements and concentrations frm a French informer who never delivered the goods.

We also know that Napoleon despite a quite extensive network of pro-French informers managed to convince himself that the Prussian Army was centred far further south than it actually was and that Charleroi was actually the weak point in the line where the Prussian and Allied armies met. In fact he hit the Prussian Army almost at the centre of its front driving its right flank back into the British rather than away from them and it was only Blucher decision to concentrate at Ligny that created the gap between the two armies. They actually marched away from each other in the opening stages of the campaign.

At that level some form of FOW is justified. Not hiding the armies completely but certainly disquising their level of readiness and displacing their location.

While the points Didz makes are valid historically, you still have to remember the scale of EiA. When the Army of the North moved out, ALL 10 of its corps would have been in ONE area of the EiA map (Soissons). The Prussian army would probably have had 3 corps in the Namur area and one the the Liege area. The Anglo-Allied Army would have been spread out in the Namur, Brussels and possibly Antwerp areas.

With forces so close (by scale), total FOW would not make sense. Like many respondents, I think the EiA rules hiding corps strength but revealing corps location is the most reasonable FOW for the game.

In fact those 10 corps were not in Soissons province for very long. They were concentrated from along the entire north eastern frontier in about a week. The EiA Waterloo campaign probably goes something like this:

French turn. All Corps march on Namur province (probably). They meet 3 or 4 Prussian corps in combat. Wellington reinforces the battle with 3 British and two allied corps. French win first day of combat, lose the second badly. Game over.

If folks want to be able to know where every unit is on the board at all times, that is fine with me. Without any options for some sort of FOW, the game will be nothing more than a caricature of the Napoleonic Wars. In my opinion, it will be incomplete.

Any Wargame of any period is in fact only a representation of that specific era/situation/action.

Do not for one minute think that you will be making the same decisions that a national leader would have made back then, because you will have way more information at your disposal than any leader could possibly have had. And that would be especially true if you played one of the poorer nations like Spain or Turkey. [/quote]

You cannot seriously think that even with Fog of War that you are remotely in the same decision making position/process of any national leader of that time? You have the benefit of historical fact. You also are aware of specific capabilities.

Whilst I appreciate your request for Fog of War I do feel you are taking it a tad too far. Why not play tiddly Winks blind folded now thats Fog of War, oh no wait I've got it, When it comes out why not sit in front of your screen blindfolded. there you are Fog of War. Glad to be of assistance old chap if you need any more help give me a shout

Ok I was taking a look last night at the best war game ever! “Billy Bo Bob and the Mars Invaders!”. I noticed that while riding in the buggy-mobile the rate of sink when jumping over craters is 1/3 the fall rate of our current earth gravity when doing the Newtonian mathematics. However, I spotted a big flaw. If I pick up the Billy Bo Bob phaser, then hop into the buggy mobile, then the rate is still 1/3 the fall rate. What!!? With the extra added weight, the fall rate should be faster! Yes, I know that two masses should accelerate the same rate with gravity but that is only in a pure vaccume. Mars is not a pure vaccume and there should be resistance in it, which should be carefully detailed to in the strategic game!

As a furthermore test, I ended up doing a full inventory load-up first before entering the buggy. I stocked up on two phasers, 4 mars cocktails, 1 Mars-aram-bazooka, and 4 super duper missile thingies. I then hoped into the buggy and the SAME UNREALISTIC results occurred!

In any real invasion on mars, the LAND BUGGY SHOULD NEVER FALL AT THE SAME RATE when you have different weighted weapons in it! This is totally un-realistic, and I demand the developers improve the rule set!

Now, there are some wise-guys out there who think making the proper changes will un-balance ’Billy Bo Bob and the Mars Invaders”. They think that the Billy Mother ship will collide with the 4’th Asteroid of Tohagamaganiminuts, and that the Billy Papa ship will be too heavy to lift off the ground with only a 44-tesla-nuclear-bio-chemical-super-upgraded-coil. Well, how do you know unless you try!? Anyway, I don’t think there will be a problem, because we can always replace the Papa and the Moma ships with the Billy Baby ship.

I demand a realistic version!

< Message edited by Pippin -- 5/10/2004 12:27:18 AM >

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…